SUBASH CHANDRA SRICHANDAN vs STATE OF ODISHA

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 07-Sep-2026 18:30:53



IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


FAO No.840 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010529442026

th
(From Order dated 6 November, 2019 passed by the learned State
Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in GIA Case No.22 of 2014)


…. Appellant
Subash Chandra Srichandan


-versus-

….
State of Odisha, represented through
the Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Bhubaneswar and others

Respondents


Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. S. Jena, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA


CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY


JUDGMENT
st
1 September, 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S.K.
Jee, learned AGA for State – Respondents.
2. As per the impugned order, challenged in the present appeal, the
claim of the appellant in terms of the GIA Order 1994 was refused by the
learned Tribunal on the ground that this Court in the case of State of
FAO No.840 of 2026 Page 1 of 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 07-Sep-2026 18:30:53
Orissa v. Lokanath Behere and another , 2018(II) ILR CUT 535 and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7299 of 2019 ( Loknath
Behera v. State of Odisha ) has rejected similar claim.
3 . In course of hearing it is admitted that, the case of the Appellant is
duly covered by the decision of this Court in State of Odisha v.
Ratnakar Mohapatra and Another , FAO No.509 of 2014 and batch,
th
decided on 19 March, 2025, and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.6943 of 2026 and batch, disposed of on
th
25 March, 2026. The observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court relevant
for the purpose are as follows:-
“6. After perusal of the nature of the said direction, it is
apparent that the judgment of State of Odisha and Another v.
Anup Kumar Senapati and another has been considered by the
High Court in the impugned order. Moreover, the document, in
particular the RTI information provided by the Directorate of
Secondary Education vide letter dated 21.01.2013 has also been
considered. On Consideration of the said RTI information, the
Court, as observed in para 6.3 therein, was of the view that the
judgment of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra) does not create
complete and absolute bar. Moreover, it has also been taken note
of by the Court that in other similar cases, against the orders
passed by the Tribunal and the High Court, various Special
Leave Petitions for example Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.
19387-19388 of 2019 have been dismissed. Thereafter, Review
Petition (Civil) Diary No. 46612 of 2019 and Curative Petition
FAO No.840 of 2026 Page 2 of 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 07-Sep-2026 18:30:53
(Civil) Nos. 252-253 of 2021 have also been dismissed by this
Court. The Court has also considered that various Special Leave
Petitions filed against orders of the High Court affirming the
benefit of grant in aid have been dismissed. In this view, the
nature of directions issued by the High Court was that the
judgment of Anup Kumar Senapati (supra) would not be treated
as absolute bar. It was further directed that the employees and
institutions, if otherwise eligible for the benefit of grant in aid
under the GIA order 1994 and where recommendations have
been made by the respective Directorate prior to such repealing
of GIA Order 1994 in respect of unaided Schools, Girls Schools,
Higher Secondary Schools and Colleges, then in that situation,
the verification is to be made by the State authorities taking note
of these aspects and upon such verification and appreciation of
the orders passed by the courts, authorities were directed to pass
appropriate orders and to complete such exercise within a period
of six months.
7) In our view, the direction as issued by the High Court is
completely in consonance with the reasoning as specified
therein and the discretion has been left with indicated the State
to consider all the aspects as indicated hereinabove including the
nature of the orders which have been passed by this Court in
similar matters and to pass necessary orders subject to
verification. In this light, we are not inclined to interfere.”
4. There having no factual dispute in terms of the order of the learned
th
Tribunal dated 6 November, 2019 (Annexure-3), as impugned in the
present appeal, the concerned Director, i.e. Director of Higher Education,
FAO No.840 of 2026 Page 3 of 4

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 07-Sep-2026 18:30:53
Government of Odisha (O.P. No.2) is thus required to consider the case
of the Appellant.
5. Accordingly, present appeal is disposed of quashing the impugned
order of learned State Educational Tribunal at Annexure-3, with a
direction to the Director, Higher Education (Opposite Party No.2) to
verify the case of the Appellant in view of the facts mentioned in the
impugned order of the Tribunal under Anneure-3 and to extend the
benefit accordingly as per the principles decided in the case of State of
Odisha v. Ratnakar Mohapatra ( supra ), preferably within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along
with a copy of the Appeal Memorandum.

(B.P. Routray)
Judge



M.K. Panda, P.A.

FAO No.840 of 2026 Page 4 of 4